Kent County planning commission recommends conditional approval for Hartley Delaware Solar amid public opposition

The Kent County Regional Planning Commission voted 6–0 on Sept. 11 to recommend conditional approval of C‑25‑01, Hartley Delaware Solar, a community energy generating facility located outside the Growth Overlay District. The motion included conditions from staff’s Sept. 4, 2025 report requiring minimum 7‑foot perimeter fencing designed to allow small animals and birds to pass under or through, multiple gates to allow egress for deer, and native pollinator seed mix ground cover.

Commissioner Gavry moved the motion on the record and the commission adopted the staff conditions cited in the recommendation. The recommendation is advisory to Kent County Levy Court and is subject to permitting and compliance with the conditions recorded in the staff report.

Public comment and concerns Several members of the public spoke during the meeting’s public comment period and opposed solar projects generally and this project specifically. John Nichols, identifying himself as a resident of Clayton, said he opposes the approvals on public‑welfare and economic grounds, arguing solar is “an intermittent resource. It’s not dispatchable.” Nichols also said that, in his view, subsidies and market structures required to integrate solar raise electricity costs and create adverse effects for agriculture; he told the commission that at scale solar deployments in the county total about 1,600 acres (as stated in public comment).

Nichols summarized economic concerns as follows: "We're paying once for the solar and then again we're paying for the necessary, in Delaware's case, natural gas to... back it up." He also raised reclamation and contamination questions tied to panel materials, saying the panels contain PFAS coatings and asking for additional testing.

Other public commenters echoed farmland and cultural concerns. Kevin Goldsboro, a Smyrna resident and Afghanistan veteran, said offers for land leases can be financially tempting: "I got an offer in the mail for $3,000 an acre," he said, and described how some landowners see leasing as the only viable option in the current market. Goldsboro also said some local Amish neighbors view industrial solar as out of character with the agricultural area and that community options for supplemental farm income have narrowed over time.

Donald Goldsboro, another resident, told the commission he worried solar companies might not follow through on cleanup obligations and noted a prior Delaware Supreme Court case his remarks referenced, saying the Court had affirmed local discretion in voting but that outcomes can be contested in higher forums.

Commission response and staff notes Commissioner Godfrey thanked public speakers and noted the commission’s limited authority: "in terms of actually disapproving a project that meets the codes, we don't have that authority to do." He described changes the commission had negotiated on the edges of county code where the commission had authority to require design and operational improvements. Commissioners asked follow‑up questions about lease economics, tax credits and testing for contaminants.

A staff member on the record confirmed that testing and monitoring requirements are part of agency oversight; during the exchange a staff member indicated testing is conducted and referred to routine monitoring parameters discussed in agency review (meeting transcript exchange noted a five‑year reference when asked about testing frequency).

What was decided Despite public opposition, the commission recorded a 6–0 recommendation for conditional approval, including the fencing, animal/deer egress and native ground cover conditions taken from the staff report. The recommendation will be part of the record forwarded to Levy Court and to agency permitting reviews; any final approvals, construction permits or required monitoring will depend on subsequent agency actions and permit conditions.